What If The United States Built A Transcontinental High Speed Rail Line?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ส.ค. 2024
- Get up to 60% off your Babbel subscription here: bit.ly/3wmds7o and start speaking a new language in 3 weeks 🎉
Follow me on Substack: geographybygeoff.substack.com/
Follow me on Instagram: / geographic_geoff
Listen to the podcast: www.spreaker.com/show/what-if...
Americans have a tepid relationship with passenger rail, but this wasn't always the case! 100 years ago, it was quite common to take a train from one city to the next and one of the most pivotal moments in American history was when the Transcontinental Railroad was completed. Today, there are multiple high speed rail projects either being built out, planned, or conceptualized. But all are very regional and relatively small in scope. So what if the United States built a Transcontinental High Speed Rail Line?
Enjoy the video? Subscribe for more! / @geographybygeoff
Photos and videos come from Pexels, Pixabay. Attribution below:
Alex Kad
Aric Shelby
David Dibert
Donald Tong
Ella Wei
FanRailer (Wikipedia)
Hide
Jakub Gorajek
Kehn Hermano
Kelly L
Luke Yanko
Marc Mueller
Martin Loterberg
NC3D (Wikipedia)
Shannon1 (Wikipedia)
Swisshumanity
Train Guru
Wikimedia images are all public domain unless otherwise noted above.
Classic video footage provided by Prelinger Archives. All video used from this service is public domain. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Before doing a full transcontinental the US should connect Brightline with the Acela Express through Jacksonville, Savannah, Fayetteville, Raleigh, and Richmond. There's enough large cities along the route to make it worthwhile.
But that would require a Federal Government Company working with a entirely private enterprise. That's already not likely to ever happen with any level of coherency nor success. Then you also have to consider the cargo rail companies of the area (namely CSX & their subsidiaries) who would rail against it with absolutely aggression and tons of lobbying to prevent it, as cargo rail corps ALWAYS do with literally ANYTHING they deem threatens their monopolies on their right of ways. They even use this aggression and lobbying when local area attempt to get them to allow us to put in sidewalks or crossings. They get livid and lobby so aggressively against it. It's infuriating.
please god no we dont need high speed rail transporting blacks from the dirty south north.
I’m a rail fan and think there are good regional cases for high speed rail. But a transcontinental project has many problems. 1. Massive cost, whether new routing or improving existing trackage. 2. Terrain. Specifically the Appalachians and Rockies. Neither are single mountain passes, requiring many tunnels and big climbs. Many existing routes snake along rivers to reduce grades. 3. Maintaining 150 mph and it would still take 20-24 hours depending on stops. But I’d guess 36 hours given the mountain passes, versus 5 for airlines. 4. Airlines cover regional routes too. Bottom line, it makes sense for regional 200-500 mile runs but transcontinental would be a hard sell.
Regional rail is definitely a better value proposition and should be the focus. I could see HSR getting from Florida to Texas or New York to Chicago or Minneapolis eventually, but the rest of the route west would be a tough sell.
I think the closest to a transcontinental railroad would be something where a person could connect to multiple regional high speed rail routes through transfers.
There are definitely several regional corridors in the US where HSR would be very effective: NE, California, Pacific NW, Texas, Florida, Midwest. I can also see an ‘Eastern Triangle’ linking NYC, Chicago and Atlanta and their HSR systems to create an eastern US HSR network. West of the Mississippi would be a tough sell though cause of how spread out the population centers are until you reach the West Coast, where as a result flying would outcompete it. About 59% of the country lives east of the Mississippi, and virtually all the major cities are close enough together to make HSR effective.
So much discussion of rail emphasizes the endpoints. And I get the logic of major anchors, but that is the logic of airlines. A surface corridor connects two ends with everything in-between. Billings, MT and Colorado Springs are not great prospect for hourly 737 direct flights, but add the 100 little stops between and you can aggregate all the little trips until it really amounts to something. Build that out over several generations and you could have sleeper service from Edmonton, AB to San Salvador.
Airline coverage of regional routes usually means flying from one tiny airport to a hub, wait half the day for the transfer, then back out to another tiny airport which is why so many people drive those trips that are still day-long drives. Even if a train is able to just average the same speed as driving, it would still be massively popular to at least be more comfortable than driving or flying for the same travel time and of course, it's possible to go faster with strategic use of high-speed infrastructure. As for the Rockies, I'd imagine that they'd just tunnel through and if designed for at least 180 MPH travel (though even 150 MPH in tunnels would still be huge), will have negligible impact on overall travel time and still remain fairly competitive.
I just took my first rail trip for fun across the US and I can’t recommend it enough. I went from my home in NY, on the Cardinal to Chicago to drop some of my stuff off for college, then to Salt Lake City via the California Zephyr to visit my cousins.
Views while flying could never hold a candle to the view from the train alongside the Colorado River in the Rockies, and the New River in Appalachia was great as well. But the big thing I never anticipated was the social aspect of these long distance trains. On a plane, everyone is focused on the destination rather than their current (usually uncomfy) situation, and nobody wants to talk. Meanwhile on the trains I kept a log of interesting people I met that ended up multiple pages long. And as for regional rail, I found that a lot of the passengers on the train were going to or from a small town, because the train is cheaper than both a flight and then a connection to a small airport, or dealing with gas at their current prices.
If you’re not in a hurry to get somewhere I can’t recommend the rails enough.
That sounds great, but how much did it cost?
I want to use Amtrak for long distance travel but it's either pay hundreds of dollars for a Roomette or sleep uncomfortably in a Coach seat for two or three nights in a row.
4:59, the transcontinental railroad is NOT mostly defunct and not used. This is only true if you qualify it by saying that it is not used by passenger rail service. The entire original transcontinental route between Omaha and San Francisco is owned and operated by Union Pacific, and sees heavy freight traffic on a daily basis.
I've been a passenger rail advocate and railroader just about all of my adult life. Worked for Amtrak on-board for 14 years, and was train and engine service for CSX for another 9. So, I think I know a few things. You're right in that we have to make it easier to get from coast-to-coast by train, certainly more than one frequency per line per day. I don't know about one continuous 300 km/h line from NY to SFO (maybe it should be LA instead?). First It should be more direct in the middle, so Pittsburgh to St. Louis via Columbus and Indy, using connecting service for the other cities, including Chicago. Chicago is perhaps the single biggest logistical obstacle to getting across the country. What a mess for the current system, and I realize you are talking about new RoW, but the land acquisition costs there are just staggering. The need to punch through the internal mountain ranges are the other major problem.
What we need first is a totally logical intermodal transportation plan for the entire country that uses air, rail and bus in the most efficient way for each. The biggest impediment to getting people out of their cars is that it is virtually impossible to get from your front door to the front door of wherever you are going without getting in a private automobile of some kind in the first place, even if that is a cab or Uber (which should never have been allowed to start, but that's another story). There aren't even adequate sidewalks in many places to allow one to walk to a bus stop without risking your neck walking in a road, and then having public transportation that runs where and when most people need it.
I agree with most of what you said, but expecting people to travel from their literal front door without ever sitting in a private automobile is unrealistic no matter how great the public transit is. Most people are not going to have a bus stop or rail station right outside their front door. Which means, what, they'll have to walk to a bus stop dragging their luggage behind them all the way? No one besides me is willing to do that.
Where I live (London, UK (American ex-pat)) I can get from London to my hotel in Edinburgh without getting in a car. Why? Because they were not designed to primarily benefit automobiles. One should be abel to go from Washington D. C., New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, etc.etc. without having to take a car.
Are you familiar with how far people drag their luggage once inside an airport?
If transit was so ubiquitous you only had to walk a few hundred feet to your bus, you'd have no problems at all except for the elderly and such. But transit that good requires dense living. Such as low rise apartments
100% agree. Chicago should no longer be a hub and it's nothing more than a huge obstacle for a lot of progress.
Point of train would be to connect people. In the middle of the country that’s Chicagoland ( which then connects people to Wisconsin to Michigan). It’s all a pipe dream anyways
"You could take a road trip on the Interstate, but would you?"
The Great American Road Trip is a thing. Like an actual vacation that actual Americans actually do. Source: am American. Grew up doing it. Still do it. Still my favorite vacation.
I grew up riding the rails. Cleveland, Boston, Chicago - they were nicely connected. Then trains went by the wayside. I hope they come back. My cross-continent railroad trip with my grandmother in 1968 is a lifelong memory I will never forget.
I like road trips. Beats flying and its nuisances. Crowded airliner. Noisy screaming kids. Obnoxious seat-mates.
Bleh *puke sound* driving more then 4hr is terrible I've done 8hr trips but they suck! More options would be awesome! and quicker too! and we'll probably still drive when we get to our destination.(car rental)
Yeah it's nice seeing the vadt empty places far from cities.
By my 30s, learned the secondary roads were a lot more enjoyable for driving than the interstate.
So the first express train took 83 hours to complete the journey. Amtrak does the route today in 75 (assuming no delays). Not that great of progress.
It might have been faster in years past in the days when trains would allegedly cruise at 100+ MPH in the Midwest/Rust Belt region.
@@snoopyloopy I can attest to them going 100+ I have an old engineer’s timetable for the Milwaukee Road’s Hiawathas. The timetable actually instructs train crews to SLOW to 100mph when crossing the diamonds at Mayfair and Rondout in the Chicagoland area.
I remember I fell in love with trains after I took the Acela from Boston to NYC. What a great experience. It made me yearn for more transit like that, and that’s what eventually lead me to this video
I would take an overnight HSR over a day flight. Maybe coast-to-coast is a bit ambitious, but I wouldn't mind going from LA to Houston, for example, by rail. Maybe board the train at 8pm and arrive the following morning. Saves a lot of time since you're sleeping on the journey instead of spending an entire day on travel.
Yeah but you're either sleeping uncomfortably in a coach seat or paying a small fortune for a sleeper room.
@@kjhuang It'll be a lot cheaper with economies of scale.
@@empirestate8791 I hope you're right, but to get to scale in the first place will require a huge investment and years of unprofitability, and I don't see Amtrak willing to do that in the foreseeable future. Long distance routes like the _Sunset Limited_ , which covers Los Angeles to Houston, are already huge money losers for Amtrak.
If the price of a room is near the price of a hotel, can be worth it. The sheer convenience of not losing the day to travel can be worth quite a bit
USA definitely needs some high speed rail!
Nailed on the head , many people in North America including Canada , have never stepped onto a train . So many North Americans consider the train too slow and too expensive , also the most important thing is, many places are no longer serviced by passenger trains , the passenger train stations were closed a long time ago including Las Vegas . It is all so sad , I love train travel .
The station at the PLAZA hotel still stands, just off limits for guests.
The original transcontinental railroad route is pretty much bumper-to-bumper trains all day long. They just happen to be freight not passenger.
This is an amazing idea! I've been hoping that there's a high speed train built here in the Midwest connecting Chicago to Milwaukee and Minneapolis, but this project make regional ones better
While I was studying abroad in Spain (in terms of rail), I used Madrid Metro and Cercanias Network, Barcelona's metro and a finicular, Seville's trams, Renfe's AVE and AVLEO services (I don't think there is much difference to the AVIA service other than being capable of using Standard and Iberian Gauge) to reach said cities from my base in Madrid (plus Zaragoza, where I only took a single bus from the station to its terminus at the city's amusement park), flew to Frankfurt, took a DB ice train from the Airport to Offenburg and regional services to Rust and Strasburg, 3 SNCF TER trains (Strasburg-Nancy, Nancy-Dijon & Dijon-Lyon in a single trip, and Lyon [round trip] La-Tour-du-Pin and then took an uber to another park), TGV over lunch from Lyon to Marseille (then a bus to Cannes and from their to Nice Airport, where I then flew back to Madrid), the Nancy TVR (their tram). I probably would have had to take regional trains at least for a portion to see a family friend who is an English professor at an engineering school in Cartagena right now because its not up to High Speed standards (Galicia also has an independent high speed network of the rest of the country right now, although I think it will be fixed soon)-although I think their are a few not high speed trains that still use the network that exists
Having made four Europe visits in the last eight years, I can vouch for the quality of European rail travel.
Don't get me wrong: I *love* the idea of a transcontinental high speed rail line. I've used the Northeast corridor dozens of times, and took the Crescent from Philly to Greenvile, SC. But the cost would be high. You need the political will to get people from states NOT directly crossed by the route to support it- look at how hard Amtrak needs to fight for every dollar, while roads and airports live comparatively high on the the hog. Cost per mile just to build the track would be huge- it's very unlikely you could project Texas' cost of $30-$50 million/mi to a national level. At least part of the route would be through two significant mountain ranges (Appalachian + Rockies). You'd need to upgrade bunches of existing stations and build new ones. You'd need to upgrade the US' entire electric grid, both generation and distribution- our current power grid is stained, and you wouldn't DREAM of powering a system like this with coal plants, would you? Again, I *love* this idea. I really do. But the main reason that Europe's rail network looks the way it does that the US paid to rebuild it after it had been blown to bits in WWII. While this would be a terrific national infrastructure program, it'd also be hugely expensive, and likely a big political lift. Right now is probably the most favourable time to invest in passenger in US history, what with a BIG rail fan in the White House. But he won't be there for the whole length of the project, and its cost won't go away or go down.
For a cost comparison, BTW, more interstate highway can be built between $2.5-$5 million/mi. The LEAST expensive current HSR project is 10x that much. Tough sell.
Part of the expense of current HSR projects is lack of institutional knowledge. It is a lot cheaper in Japan and Europe to build HSR because there are dozens of construction firms with thousands of employees there with experience building new HSR lines; the US has to pay a premium to ship in a few experts, pay a premium to get the US’s existing construction firms familiar with the processes, and pay a premium redoing stupid mistakes caused by those firms while still learning the ropes. It’s why California HSR started with the rural middle stretch-the land there is affordable and if someone made a mistake and they need to redo or reroute a section it doesn’t interrupt traffic in LA or San Fran or require the state to bulldoze a *another* stripe through the city with expensive eminent domain purchases. Once these first projects are done, other states will be able to get MUCH better deals from companies with an efficient specialist workforce looking to keep their jobs.
And while New HSR is more expensive to build than the same length of new interstate, regional rail is pretty comparable and HSR should only be needed on a few key corridors to connect the entire country (maybe 2 or 3 east-west routes and 3 or 4 north-south ones), with regional rail filling in the gaps-I’ve even seen a decent number f proposals that adding two new “lanes” in the center divider of most existing interstates for regional rail lines would be a particularly cheap way to fill out an initial baseline network independent of the freight networks that currently give amtrak so much grief.
It would indeed be expensive to convert the US from a nation primarily reliant on cars to a nation primarily reliant on trains, but not insurmountably so, particularly once the counterexamples to the standard US misconceptions about rail-that they have to be slow, infrequent, and delayed-start changing public perceptions.
True HSR is not necessary, but higher speed rail and dedicated right of way for passenger trains will allow for a much more significant development and improvement of service. I believe it the bare minimum as a means to prevent trains having to wait at crossings and junctions where Amtrak has to compete with freight rail, which will prevent delays and increase punctuality and reliability.
@@GeneralLiuofBoston1911 The best possible solution to the getting stuck at crossings, etc is to remove all grade crossings, and as you mentioned, give them their own right of way. But the cargo rail companies will aggressively fight against any and all attempts to allow the passenger railways to ever gain their own right of ways, unless they're far removed from their rail right of ways.
@@TheCriminalViolin At least here in the Northeast, most if not all tracks are owned by Amtrak and any tracks owned by the freight companies aren't in the way of any Amtrak tracks between Boston and DC. Perhaps somewhere between Boston and New Brunswick on the Downeaster or Springfield to Boston, but I highly doubt it. Either way, it makes a big difference in service and although the fight will be long and hard and continuous into the next generation, I find it entirely necessary.
@@GeneralLiuofBoston1911 Considering that here in the Portland area's westside, we've been fighting hard since the 70s to get Union Pacific to allow us to build sidewalks and safe crossings along the southside of TV Hwy (a major arterial stroad that connects Portland, Beaverton & Hillsboro, along with the unincorporated but still large communities of Aloha & Reedville) and they've aggressively fought and lobbied against it every time and won, because of the sheer amount of money and thus political power they hold, I know it'd be infinitely worse and harder to achieve ever defeating them when it comes to the building of new railways, and giving passenger railways more power & equal or priority rights to the right of ways to them.
Just let it sink in - if they're willing to pour money into lobbying so aggressively against random little specific projects in specific tiny portions of suburbs like adding sidewalks and safe crossing points, then think of how much more egregious their aggression will be against any concept of passenger rail related things. It does not bode well.
I’m in love with the idea of this!! Somebody make this happen!!!
The ideal route to build is between New York City and Washington DC which an 220mph HSR should use 1 hour to reach on a non stop service or 1.5 hours with some stops. If you wish to fly, you can’t even board the plane in 1.5 hours and the train already reached the destination.
Looking forward to Brightline in Florida for vacation. Looks like it will be faster and cheaper than driving and a lot more fun.
Are you going with family?
Not to mention significantly safer than an interstate filled with people unfamiliar with the area.
@@jasonreed7522
Agreed! You can enjoy scenery without accidently swerving into the next lane as well.
I live in Fort Lauderdale, and I feel trapped, either have to fly far enough that a flight and airport-security is worth it, or I have to drive.
I could not jump on a Chinese style elevated highspeed train and be in Orlando in 75minutes.
Brightline will take hours and sometimes another extra 2hrs as it crashes into a car every week.
@@tonysofla
As opposed to American-style elevated trains??? That was a badly executed train system. You get vehicular crashes on the highway as well. At least on a train you have access to the bathroom.
Nationalizing the railroads would be a HUGE step forward!
Took the Surfliner from San Diego to LA one time, very enjoyable. To me the key for rail travel in the US is that it has to integrate with airports physically (like a subway in a city). Too many changes of transportation mode raises the hassle-factor exponentially. Train service into LA avoids all the stress of highway travel in that complicated city or other big cities. The attraction of transcontinental rail would be comfort over air travel and easy access to other transportation at the destination. It has to be more comfortable and cheaper than air and it has to be speedy like TGV.
Reliability on rail is better than air, due to weather and transition.
I live in Los Angeles area. I just want a high speed rail from LA to Vegas. Oh I will love it. When I was in Europe I traved Eurostar Paris Gare du Nord to London St. Pancras. The ease, the comfortability, was so much better than an airplane. Plus they drop you off in the heart of the perspective cities. When high speed rail comes, there's no turning back.
Yes, Amtrak uses little of the original transcon route, but the transcontinental railroad is far from defunct. The line (some realignments along the way, but generally the same route) still makes Union Pacific primary east-west mainline.
I love transcontinental high speed rail.
The Interstate system was developed in part because the Germans had the Autobaun (noticed by Eisenhower), which could be used to transfer military equipment around with ease. This is why the Interstate system has rigid rules and standards. If we want high speed rail, we just need to find the military angle. In a similar way, we need multiple lines across the country eventually. Like the Interstate, few will take the entire line from one end to the other, but rather take lines connecting nearby metros. Air travel will be more time efficient for crossing the entire country - just like the Interstate. Granted, when the Interstate was proposed, air travel wasn't as common place as it is today. Even the military rarely moves its equipment by road, opting to fly instead.
The line west of Denver on your map would be infeasible because of the Rocky Mountains.
Between Denver and SLC, the best route would be to go north to Cheyenne and then west toward SLC across Wyoming following I-80 (and the original transcontinental railroad route).
Being a trucker I always wondered why America never did the high speed train. I think it would help in so many ways reduce airport and interstate congestion. Instead of buying much different why not just build it next to interstates that would save alot of money. I enjoy the videos and Educational value
One of the big problems with rail in the US is lack of affordable public transportation options once you arrive at your destination. And then integration of those options. It is very unlikely that anyone would ever choose to go from coast to coast on the rail line (even at max speed with no stops would be >18h versus 5 in airplane). Therefore, developing regional rail projects with integrated public transit are more likely to have a better return on investment than trying to build an enormous intercontinental railway. Much like in Europe, rail is in place to avoid “commuter” air travel (sub 2h plane flights) where the hassle of air travel (security, being 2h early etc) is easily balanced by a slightly longer (say 3-4h train trip) that has much less hassle and can drop you in the downtown area of your destination.
The most profitable Amtrak route is the car train that runs from VA to Fl.
Oh wow I didn't realize you were from Portland, me too! Sick content!
Most of the original transcontinental route has extremely heavy freight traffic volumes. Just no passenger trains.
I think it’d be great, the problem is, any revenue made from operation (which there would be), wouldn’t be enough to offset the massive construction cost. It’d have to go fast enough to go NY-LA in less than 24 hours. The infrastructure required to do that would be insane. Especially through the Rockies/inter mountain west
That is one of the things government infrastructure funding is for though-doing things that ought to be done, and everyone will benefit from, but won’t ever make a profit.
@@IONATVS True. The issue here though is that there will be almost no benefit from such a system compared to the cost as pretty much everyone would choose flying over the train in this type of situation due to almost no time or cost saving
@@metrofilmer8894 Yeah, High-Speed Rail only currently makes economic sense in a few dense corridors, most of which run north-south-nobody who needs to go from LA to NY ASAP will pick even the highest speed rail over a plane-but its presence can induce demand. Each NEIGHBORING city they connect in the network makes it more appealing to skip a slower car trip or a short-range plane trip with all the security and cramped quarters that entails in favor of a train trip, and while only a few enthusiasts would ride the whole route, a transcontinental HSR line WOULD connect a LOT of neighboring cities, and encourage even more neighboring cities to connect to the local HSR hub with regional rail. Overall it would be a poor decision in isolation, but the math changes in the context of a broader HSR network.
No major nationwide infrastructure project since the Interstate System, you say?!?...Aren't you forgetting about The Internet?
Hello... calling from Buffalo New York! By leaving Buffalo, an historic rail city, off the map of the interstate high speed rail system, you are effectively leaving behind about 10 million riders. From the Greater Toronto Area, to the Golden Horseshoe of Ontario to the Buffalo and Rochester Metropolitan areas. Buffalo will need to be a major stop and international hub on any East-West rail project. To skip this fine, historic city would be foolhardy. Surely nobody would miss Cleveland.
The US should have this but unfortunately we piss away money on wars and other things that do not benefit the citizens.
I wish they did this. I was over in Italy and took their high spped rail and it was awesome.
Everyone in the US always rant/whinge about how much the Land will cost.
Solutions:
1. The current railways were given their land by the US Govt... so adding additional two or more parallel railway tracks on land already dedicated to railways.
2. Construct the HSR in centre or to the side of the current Interstate Highway Network. HS Trains could diverge from the mainline to service a city/town etc and merge back onto the mainlines after the stop. This system diagram would allow HSTrains to either stop or carry on without any degradation to line speed. (ie. Paris to Bordeaux - none pass though cities, they skirt cities with off/on branches to serve the intermediate stations).
The latter of the two or combination of 1 and 2 would give the US a 10 x 10 Grid of HSR mainline (trunk) lines.
There would be no land acquisition costs by using the above two.
IF/When the railway does require to leave the 10x10 to service towns etc... build on 15 metre tall pillars. Each pillar would have a 1sqM base on surface of ground. Farming, agriculture, housing, etc would not be affected. The cost of purchasing 1sqM spots of land along the route instead of the ENTIRE land along the route = a lot less fiscal outlay.
The biggest issue with HSR and USA is Lack of Imagination, Creativity, and Entrepreneurship.
... or you could hop on a plane and be there in 4 hours. Which is why high speed passenger rail makes zero economic sense.
Rail happens to be great for one thing, transporting large quantities of cargo.
A 4-hour plane trip means approx. 75-90 minutes of actual flight time, considering the way to and from the airport, security, baggage, taxiing, etc. That' s about 600mi.
A HS train capable of reaching 150mph average (which is easily possible with ~185mph top speed) can do the same distance in those 4 hours. And it will do so from city center to city center.
Generally, HSR is typically faster than flying for trips up to about 400mi.
@@stephanweinberger Sure the TSA sucks and should be disbanded. But you know the first time a terrorist targets a HST or its station, its guaranteed that the scared politicans will put the same crappy TSA infrastucture on it making everyone waste 2 hours at the station for "security checks". So this is a clearly not a solid argument of why to waste money on useless passenger trains.
Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati would be a good HSR starter project.
I have been on HSR in three countries and would never drive or fly where it is available. The longest distance I have traveled on HSR being Shanghai to Bejing a distance of 755 mile, which we are told is too far for HSR, however it was quicker than flying, when all of the time wasting of flying is factored in. The reason there is no HSR in the US, is because, there is no HSR! If there were, people would love it and more would be built. The biggest obstacle to HSR is land acquisition, which could be solved, by simplying taking a few lanes of interstate highway. Oh! they need more lanes for cars? They never had a problem aquiring land for highways lanes!
Before that we need a Regional Express train system as a feeder.
You got one thing super wrong, only a couple sections of the Original route are not used, the rest is used by almost 100 Freight Trains a day Between Iowa and California!
I like your ideas. But instead of doing the broadway limited route to Chicago, I think the 20th century limited route would be better. Especially getting capital money from nyc for upgrades from NYC to Albany to Buffalo. The infrastructure is just upgrades are needed. Also Brightline is going to connect to Georgia someday and who else knows.
I think the way to go about this becoming reality would be build it out in sections. Personally, while not the most populous, building the sections say from Denver to KC and St Louis then up to Chicago and then maybe over to Cleveland would be an ideal way to start because mostly flat terrain and cheaper land. Unfortunately, building through KS and MO would be difficult with their politics.
I personally would love to see it happen. Unfortunately it will never be built . The most logical portion is Washington D.C. to New York City. Maglev Maryland, from Baltimore to Washington D.C. has been held up for years.
We actually have large mountain ranges and also a culture of personal freedom that we practice with our cars With cars you can go anywhere at any time
And what if we built an intercontinental railroad from China to Canada. With minimum 1,000 meter radius curves, and maximum 2% grades, amd maximum elevation of 880 meters.
A 90 km bridge over the Bering Strait will be expensive but can be built much faster than building a tunnel under the strait.
There was some discussion years ago about a regional rail line from Chattanooga Tennessee to Atlanta Georgia. Something that was highly anticipated especially by anyone here who has ever had to fly out of Atlanta. Driving and parking are a major hassle and expense and even shuttle vans have gone up in price. I think the project got bogged down and eventually killed my some water rights issues between the two states that all came to nothing ☹️
This is a lovely ideal but for it to work we would have a system of Interstate style freight and passenger rail corradors naturally with freight and passenger trains having their own right of way; otherwise the cost for passenger rail alone would be to expensive.
The idea is in itself good. However, with the distances involved, forget conventional rail and build a MagLev line. This would allow one to cross the US in 8 hours from east to west. The branches can then be built as conventional rail. Japan is building a MagLev shinkansen right now.
Portland Oregon represent lets gooooo! If I see you around I'm calling you out and saying hi In public. Better watch out
I love traveling by train but long distance trains in the empty part of the west isn't economically viable. Where trips are less than a day, it can make sense. Unfortunately here in California the politics and pork barrel have made high speed rail between LA and SF insanely expensive. Instead of running grade separated tracks on existing right of way on the old Daylight route, the politicians have had the train meander around the state and had to buy new right of way.
U.S is 4Million homes short, here you go: build four 1million home cities along the route to make people density viable. Have a grand vision and not a 4year election cycle.
So this would be a high speed California Zephyr?
There are portions of Amtrak's former "National Limited" (decrepit Penn Central lines) between NYC & Kansas City that have since had the rails pulled out & converted to bike paths. Such as between Columbus, Ohio & St. Louis, Missouri. So: maybe those corridors could be re-acquired for purposes of HSR. Thus simply bypassing Chicago. Funding such a project would be the major consideration.
The ONLY way this would work is if it's cheaper to travel by train than by plane by a significant amount. I live in Toledo, one of the stops on your route, so that would be great for me. However, it's still going to take about 16 hours to get to San Francisco traveling at an average of 150 mph. I can travel to Detroit airport about an hour away and get on a direct flight and be there in less than 6 hours total travel time. I would guess most people given the choice would still travel by air even if it was 50% higher in price, simply because of the less time it would take to get there. Given that a high-speed rail system would cost over 500 billion dollars for over 3000 miles of track and take decades to complete, the price of a ticket I think would be higher than a plane ticket. Nice pipe dream but just not practical for the population density of the USA. The people in the plains and western mountain states would get very little benefit from it, but still have to pay for it.
I Pray the Texas High speed rail line paves the way for the rest of the country. The Texas Triangle is perfect for High speed rail
Just build the damn thing down the median of the U.S. Highway system. The land is already owned, it is also already graded very well. Sure not a traditional HSR option and will not allow super high speeds due to the radius of curves and grades the highway has, but it will get the job done, still be able to run fast enough to beat driving by a long shot and cost billions less than buying new land.
Why aren't waterways used anymore for transportation? For instance, I think the Charles River in Boston could be used to transport lots of people, and ease congestion along the Massachusetts Turnpike ....
Yes
As far as I am aware, only the Northeast Corridor is actually owned by Amtrak (or at most, a majority of that Boston-DC route).
Every time anyone says infrastructure, it is "code" for...road building. Politicians are beholden to contractors who build roads. Contracts/donations. quid pro quo. Sometimes you got to step out of the box and do what is best for most, build high speed rail.
How do we separate freight and passenger trains routes in the states?
Leave the freight routes alone and build new ones for HSR.
1) We need more rail for both. 2) Freight could be moved to passenger travel off hours at night (say 10 until 5) in some areas, reserving daytime travel for passengers. Parallel lines could be run as well.
Seriously, you'd need a national rail company. Like an actual Federal Government rail investment, kind of like the TVA but for rail. And that's gonna be a political nonstarter. Texas is out: the Federal Government is not the original source of those land grants: Texas is, and Texas is doing its own thing. You could probably negotiate junctions or something with them. You'd need to give Hawaii and Alaska a bone somehow. And of course, there's the issue of paying for this work without resorting to inflation.
@@hape3862 yup about five trillion to start....about what we have spent on COVID.
@@b_uppy we have 52,000 Mike's of multiple track roads in the USA out of the total 141,000 mile system.
Great argument
You could easily have less in terms of junctions, massively decrease time and cost, but still serve the same effective function. Why go to Philly? Why stop in Toledo? You don’t really need St. Louis and KC (pick one), or Sacramento.
You can have substations that you could take to other hubs of slower rail, then have high speed again from Missouri to Florida, or Colorado to Texas.
If the goal is to get from one side to the other, minimize the stops, then make substations that aren’t as expensive and drop off in to other high speed rail when it makes sense again.
Also, you can always rent a car and drive a couple hours, the highways don’t get deleted.
Build California High Speed Rail and build California High Speed Rail now from San Francisco to Los Angeles and Anaheim and Sacramento to San Diego.
I’m a big supporter of High Speed Rail investment in the US, but the reality is LA to New York just isn’t feasible, LA to SF is a good start (once it gets completed… eventually.)
But that said, there’s one HSR line I’ve wanted to happen since I was 12: Atlanta to D.C; and that’s actually been proposed. Currently there are studies going forward for Atlanta to Charolette HSR, with the goal of extending it all the way to D.C. I definitely want to see that, and I think it’d be great for the economy in all the cities, and will fluctuate growth in the cities; that’s what Brightline did for Miami and West Palm, and pretty soon Orlando! And I’m positive the Cali HSR will do that for Cali once it’s up and running. (Again, eventually.)
Definitely want to see HSR happen, but we also gotta look at the reality that a national Network just wouldn’t work all that well in the long run; however there are plenty of places it can work at.
Atlanta to DC would be great. It would extend the Northeast Corridor to reach ~15-20 million more people in a region that is growing very quickly
This would be amazing to have, sure most people would travel regional but there would be the option for people who want to go a farther distance and connect more cities by rail especially if it is half the price of a car and twice the speed of a car then there would not no much of a reason to use a car
I think to succeed with long-long distance trains in the US you would need at least the option to bring your car with you, like Amtrak's "Auto-train".
@@natehill8069 not necessarily but that is actually a really good idea because if you could take a high speed train that’s faster than taking your car, say from Chicago to LA and you pay a bit of extra money for a slot on the auto rack and you can then use your car when you get to LA. That being said the best way to get people to use rail instead is to make it twice the speed of the car, more comfortable, and half the cost because why drive. When high speed rail can get you there way faster and way cheaper without the stress of driving and the added benefit of being able to sit on your ass and read a book the whole way?
I admit to being weird. I would rather walk than drive and I prefer the train for long-distance travel. You will not get people out of their cars. You will have to make an allowance for people to bring their cars with them. If people drive their cars on to the train in Philidelphia and drive them off in San Francisco, you might sell the idea. If they must leave their car at one end and rely on rental or public transportation at the other end, the idea will never get funded. As to land acquisition, use the current rail lines, leave them intact, and build the highspeed lines above them on stilts.
Due to rocky mountain range, it's highly unlikely for America to have a high speed rail via the continent as the drawing board.
if we ever get one, it will likely come in from the south and go north via pacific coast first due to the enormous cost of tunneling the rocky.
If the high speed rail between New York and San Francisco is completed, this 4130km route will take only 15 hours, based on China’s Beijing to Hong Kong route travelling time, instead of its current time of between 76 to 83 hours.
That is why we have problems with infrastructure. The cost of those projects are way too high and have excessively redundant permit requirements. Government projects especially are expensive and usually cost 2 to 3 times the original estimate.
Love the partly Deutsch spoken sponsor intro.
Omg you're so right
It would be nice to install a high speed rail goin all over the country but the cost would be effective and it would cost a fortune
You produce great content.
Thank you! I appreciate the compliment!
It might be a smash. Make certain it goes through Des Moines. Central Iowans might be delighted.
the actual purpose of course isnt the expectation of California directly to new york being the major point of HSR. its the HSR between california and nevada. nevada and utah. utah and colorado, all the way to PA with NY. every connecting point is a strengthened hub where other transit branches off.
It could be transformational indeed for all of USA!!! No doubts about it...
now we have interstate 80 to get you from New York City to San Francisco
OMG YES!!! This is an excellent suggestion-make sure this gets to Amtrak admin & Pres Biden!!! So badly needed!!! Thanks for your writing this!!!
Biden's too busy helping wealthy college grads and Ukrainian cronies.
Amtrak is too busy serving Leftist cities.
It has been around since the Klintoons Era. My State even approved by law the US 460 corridor portion from Norfolk Virginia Westwards......1990$
I want California High Speed Rail.
It's a nice idea on paper, but it only makes sense if you have literally unlimited money. We don't. Need to use the limited resources we have on much more reasonable and useful connections like Miami-Orlando-Tampa or the Northeast Corridor first. You don't need high speed rail from Kansas City to Denver.
You cited a potential 57 million people in the catchment area for a transcontinental HSR -- a line from DC to
boston would have about the same number but would cost fractionally less and be used by way more people.
Geoff ... You need to get out of Portland, Oregon ! You deserve better !! Consider relocating to the New England area.
Get California High Speed Rail and get California High Speed Rail now from San Francisco to Los Angeles and Anaheim and Sacramento to San Diego.
Please, not New York, try Baltimore, Maryland. In California try Oakland .
With the Big 3's in decline , the railways is getting a second look, finally .
scale exists
theres a reason we dont take trivially short flights and a reason we dont take massively long car drives
if you want to do a short distance, you take a car or public transit
if you want to go medium distance, you take intercity rail
if you want to go long distance, you might take a sleeper train or if its super long (cross country) you fly, no way im staying in a train for 3-5 days when planes exist
Could work,but unlikely due to any design approved would be full of curves and stops.
the only way i can see HSR working on a Transcontinental route in the US is if air travel becomes prohibitally expensive. Even then it may make some trips not work time wise. Better to work on regional first.
Rail is already too regional. It needs to become more dense.
High speed rail can achieve the most sustained speed in the flyover states. If you're starting and stopping at Bellingham, Everett, Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Centralia, Vancounver Wa, Portland, Salem, Roseburg, Eugene, Medford, Redding, Sacramento, Fresno, Bakersfield, Pasadena and San Diego, what's the point? (And btw, all those places should be railstops...) Regular rail will suffice in denser areas, but also possibly connecting up to existing high speed rail, except in So Cal, where it will take forever to finish high speed trail.
First we need to work on making regional rail actually competitive with the car. (Sadly many times i have looked at using amtrak to go between 2 cities in the north east and it was literally half the speed of a car not counting the multi hour layover, this isn't what trains are supposed to be)
Secondly we need to build the HSR corridors that actually make sense, like Boston-Washington and extend to Miami. (Or atleast a transfer station to brightline) and in the west eventually get all the major cities from San Diego to Vancouver, California has started this but that project is currently famous in a bad way but i want it to succeed.
Then these corridors need spur routes until a proper network can be made on each coast ideally linking to a Canada line along the Quebec-Windsor corridor.
And finally after all that you might justify transcontinental HSR across the mostly empty and/or expensive to cross middle of the nation. (The rockies, Sierra Nevadas, and Cascades will suck to cross even following the paths of the interstate) Also by this time airtravel will be insanely expensive and people will be used to riding the rails and possibly demanding maglevs.
HSR is a great idea having used it in China. But sadly it’s doubtful that a transcontinental railway will ever be built in the USA.
11:04 omg its commuterline train in my town jakarta indonesia
Im waiting for the California high speed rail thing?
PS-passenger rail needs budgetary assignment as the highway industry does!!!
It should split with the highway system 50-50.
Indeed. Public trains always have to break-even or earn a profit...but public highways never do. There is also exorbitant waste and corruption in the US road construction business that few in the media discuss.
It's called Amtrak.....
Total Sales last year $2.4 billion.
An additional $2 billion was spent on capital rolling stock and the 350 Mile's of HSR track owned by Amtrak.
Under the Infrastructure multiple bills passed in the last several years at least another $40 - 50 Billion is allocated to Amtrak.
California's short HSR run if ever completed will run at least 10-20 billion a mile.
@@ablewindsor1459
Be great if they brought cheaper rail to the underserved areas and connected them to other hubs. Then people from out of town could leave their vehicles at home and use rail instead and lessen the burden on roads that way...
@@b_uppy well I live in Roanoke VA, four years ago we got one train to Washington DC, first since 1970. In June we got number two. A twelve year haul to get the first. About two hundred persons a train, the Highest density of all the new runs of the past 20 years for Amtrak.
Gives them Almost 5o% of operating cost on Sales.
Out on Interstate 81 it takes about ten minutes for the same number of people to pass during off hours. ..
Transit time is about the same as driving.
When you get to DC you connect to one of the few American cities with both a subway system and surface bus Network plus electric bikes and scooters.......
And a Northern Virginia State owned Commuter rail System that provides the ability to reach a large part of the megacity area....... Almost no other area except NYC provides such a level of connectivity.
As I write this I am looking at a rail cam with a several hundred empty coal cars passing back deep into the mountains. We have about 75 freight trains a day pass by.....
Canada would build a high-speed rail network to match the U.S. so the example you give may end up being high-speed rail because The badlands are due north and they would have high-speed rail lines from there major cities into Denver and into the growing cities of central canada!!!
Although in theory a transcontinental HSR is a good idea, in reality it would more likely fail in the US. The states proposed are mostly considered "flyover" states and the political atmosphere in those mentioned would be horrendously hostile to such a project; especially, if it's a federalized service. The best approach would be a series of practical regional HSR lines from a self-sustainable business model and shifting southwards where rural land is cheaper and possibly sustainable energy more abundant (solar, wind, maybe nuclear). Maybe even sell excessive energy to the grid🤷♂.
Just a thought experiment from a Texan perspective as an example:
- Maybe extending the Houston-Dallas line north to OKC, south/west to San Antonio/Austin, west from DFW to Midland/El Paso, and/or east to New Orleans/Baton Rouge. Though the terrain of southern LA would make it very expensive to build and maintain, a line further east of Slidell to GA/FL would be met with nothing but hostility.
- Maybe creating a north/south line from El Paso to Santa Fe, then an extension from Las Cruses to Tucson/Phoenix (though an east/west line would be financially challenging to be viable). If successful, it could continue to San Bernardino (beyond here would be insanely expensive for a private company to do).
Though this idea wouldn't be a transcontinental HSR, It would interconnect a lot of the growing southwest by it's regions. As a bonus, most of these can run parallel to the existing interstates and/or freight lines.
We have a lack of service across the middle. High speed rail can achieve the most sustained speed in the flyover states.
If you're starting and stopping at Bellingham, Everett, Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Centralia, Vancounver Wa, Portland, Salem, Roseburg, Eugene, Medford, Redding, Sacramento, Fresno, Bakersfield, Pasadena and San Diego, what's the point? (And btw, all those places should be railstops...)
Regular rail will suffice in denser areas, but also possibly connecting up to existing high speed rail, except in So Cal, where it will take forever to finish high speed trail.
@@b_uppy I was deployed to Italy in the 1970s and when we had time we used the trains. They have local and express trains. The locals stops everywhere and the express only at major stops. People just take the local train till the get to an express stop and change trains for long distance travel.
@@Chris_at_Home
That makes sense. There are whole areas of the US without any rail service. That's where putting a rail across the midline would increase service.
I disagree. Those middle states are most of the time over looked. If you can connect those small towns or regions with rail and bus networks. Those towns now have a connection to the outside world. And you now could have people live further away from major cities and still commute. Cheaper housing and life expenses. Imagine how far you can live from your job if you were traveling at 220mph. You can live 300miles away from your job if your commute is an hour and a half.
@@thetrainguy1
I agree with you. It would be tapping more customers rather than serving the same few.
I somewhat recently created an theoretical alignment for a, transcontinental high speed rail line in Google Earth. (down to a few thousand feet of precision).
Because I have no access to precise mapping or geological data (and was rather lazy to search for it) it ain't realistic.
To be competitive with airtravel I choose to push trains to never be seen speeds of 650kph (400mph).
Noteworthy: the current world record on conventional rail is 572kph (357mph) so not that far off.
With no TSA, citycenter to citycenter and hop on hop off at stations 650kph is sufficient to be competitive with airtravel on routes as NY LA.
The overhead wire would probably not be the standard 25kV 60Hz, instead being 50kv 60Hz single phase AC to keep electrical-current low.
In the Rockies and Appalachian Mountain speeds drop to "only" 400kph (250mph).
Get some good Swiss tunnel engineers and the mountain ain't a problem anymore.
Overall route will be LA - Vegas - Salt Lake City - (Ski-resorts branches in the Rockies [moneymaker in the winter]) - Denver - Colorado Springs - (New World record line built for 1000kph [break the sound-barrier with a train]) to Salina - Kansas City - Saint Louis - Indianapolis - Columbus - Pittsburgh - Philadelphia - New York.
Yes I skipped Chicago because the whole line is part of a lager system With many more lines.
If there is interest I would publish my current work as a .kmz file.
Why San Francisco? Crossing the Rockies and Sierra Nevada would be difficult and expensive. A southern route passing through Texas, NM, AZ, and terminating in Los Angeles seems like it would serve more people and be a lot less expensive to build.
It wouldn't be used enough to pay for the build cost.
Would make much more sense to focus on profitable intercity routes…. Then expand….
Build It and They Will Come.
Skip add 1:34